alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the First Division,

November 17, 1949

No. 53726.

petition 6684-R (Tampa).

#### Alberto Hernandez *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The petition was dismissed.

Cole, J., dissented on jurisdictional grounds, citing *Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 158, *C.*D. 1175), *Fuchs Shoe Corp.*v. *United States*(id. 338, Abstract 53250), and *W. R. Zanes & Co.*v. *United States*(id. 339, Abstract 53251).
(V. D. 7)

#### American Thermo-Ware Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 797479, etc.

(Decided June 11, 1954)

*Walter Auster*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

These matters are presently before me on a remand from a classification.proceeding decided by the first division of this court in *American Thermo-Ware Company*v. *United States,*32 Cust. Ct. 433, Abstract 57940. The judgment entered therein stated: “* * * that the matters be remanded to a single judge in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d).”

The matters have been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 *543(d)), to be the proper basis for determining the values of the involved merchandise and that such values are as set forth in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof.

I further find such values to be the dutiable values of said merchandise.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.



*544
### September 2010 

# Economic Impact Anal ysis f or Cor por a te P ar ent and N AICS Repor ting Amendment to MRR

Repor t f or Final R ule CONTENTS

Section 1 Introduction and Background 1-1

Section 2Summary of the FINAL Ammendment 2-1 2.1 Definition of Affected Entities 2-1 2.2 Rationale for Collecting Information on Parent Company(s), NAICS code(s) and Cogeneration 2-6

Section 3 FACILITY- and Supplier-LEVEL Cost Analysis 3-1 3.1 Estimating the Loaded Hourly Wage Rates3-1 3.2 Estimating Facility and Supplier Reporting Burden 3-2 3.2.1 U.S. Parent Company Name, Address, and Percent Ownership 3-2 3.2.2 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code(s) and Cogeneration 3-4 3.2.3 Summary of Burden Esitmate Per Facility 3-6

Section 4Economic Analysis 4-1 4.1 National Cost Estimates 4-1 4.1.1 National Cost Estimate 4-2 4.2 Small Entity Analysis 4-4 4.3 Synopsis of Benefits 4-4

Section 5 Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 5-15.1 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 5-1 5.2 Paperwork Reduction Act 5-1 5.3 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 5-3 5.4 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 5-4 5.5 Executive Order 13132: Federalism 5-5 5.6 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 5-5 5.7 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 5-6 5.8 Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 5-6 5.9 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 5-6 5.10 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations 5-6 5.11 Congressional Review Act5-7LIST OF TABLES Table 21.Examples of Regulated Entities by Category 2-2 Table 31 Loaded Hourly Wage Rates by Labor Category 3-1 Table 32. Summary of Burden Estimate Per Facility For Parent Company Name(s), Address(es), and Percent Ownership. 3-4 Table 33. Summary of Burden Estimate for NAICS and Cogeneration Per Facility 3-5 Table 34. Summary of Burden Estimate Per Facility 3-6 Table 41. Number of Facilities and Suppliers Required to Report GHG Emissions by Industry Sector 4-2 Table 43. National Burden and Costs to Reporters by Data Element and Reporting Year 4-4 Table 51. Cost Summary for Final Rulemaking 5-1
IIA 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 38 

Approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese 

Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2006 

Mr. MCCONNELL (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. FRIST, Mr. 

REID, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. 

BIDEN, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BUNNING, 

Mr. BURNS, Mr. BURR, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mrs. CLINTON, 

Mr. COCHRAN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. DEWINE, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. DOMENICI, 

Mr. DURBIN, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. HARKIN, 

Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KERRY, Mr. KOHL, Mr. KYL, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. 

LIEBERMAN, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. 

SARBANES, Mr. SMITH, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. VOINOVICH, 

and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in 

the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•SJ 38 IS

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO BURMESE FREEDOM AND DE2 MOCRACY ACT OF 2003. 

3 Section 9(b)(3) of the Burmese Freedom and Democ4 racy Act of 2003 (Public Law 108–61; 50 U.S.C. 1701 

5 note) is amended by striking ‘‘three years’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘six years’’. 

7 SEC. 2. RENEWAL OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS UNDER BUR8 MESE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT OF 

9 2003. 

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress approves the renewal of 

11 import restrictions contained in section 3(a)(1) of the 

12 Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. 

13 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—This joint resolution 

14 shall be deemed to be a ‘‘renewal resolution’’ for purposes 

15 of section 9 of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act 

16 of 2003. 

17 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

18 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

19 take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act or 

20 July 26, 2006, whichever occurs first. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
No. 39007.

#### Protest 922572-G of W. Doshim (Boston).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of apricot kernels similar to those the subject of Abstract 34104. The claim at 3 cents per pound under paragraph 762 was therefore sustained.
No. 51158.

#### Protests 57132-K, etc., of Latoracca Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited the following allowances were made to compensate for the weight of the inedible substance on the outside of the cheese: (1) 2)4 percent for the cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), Abstract 42146, and Abstract 48269; and (2) 1 percent for the cheese similar to the Reggiano cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States, supra.*The protests were sustained to this extent.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Robert L.G. White, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Breeze-Eastern Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;          (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;          (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  February 13, 2007 /s/  Robert L.G. White   Robert L. G. White   President & Chief Executive Officer  
29
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document









































 
 

  Exhibit 10.1    
    


 FIRST AMENDMENT TO  


 AMENDED AND RESTATED 2006 UNIT PLAN  


 OF  


 NMH INVESTMENT, LLC  


        THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO the NMH INVESTMENT, LLC AMENDED AND RESTATED 2006 UNIT PLAN (the
"Plan"), dated as of August 11, 2008, is hereby adopted and agreed to by the Management Committee of NMH Investment, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (the "Company") by unanimous written consent pursuant to Section 7(a)
of the Plan. 


        1.     Amendments to the Plan.    Section 3 of the Plan is
hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 



        SECTION 3. Units Subject to the Plan.



        "The
total number of Preferred Units which may be issued under the Plan is 65,000, the total number of Class A Units which may be issued under the Plan is 650,000, the total
number of Class B Units which may be issued under the Plan is 192,500, the total number of Class C Units which may be issued under the Plan is 202,000, the total number of Class D
Units which may be issued under the Plan is 388,881 and the total number of Class E Units which may be issued under the Plan is 6,375. Units which are subject to Awards which terminate or lapse
without any payment in respect thereof may be granted again under the Plan." 





        2.     Ratification.    All other paragraphs, provisions, and clauses in the Plan remain in full force and effect as
originally written. 


        3.     Defined Terms.    Certain capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings given to such terms in
the Plan. 


        4.     Governing Law; Binding Agreement.    The validity, construction, and effect of this amendment to the Plan shall
be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of New York applicable to contracts made and to be performed therein. 


*    *    *    *    *












QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Diane Marie Lewis,

Plaintiff

 v.

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:10-cv-1166

Judge Smith

Magistrate Judge Abel

OPINION AND ORDER

On October 3, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and

recommendation that this matter be remanded to the administrate law judge for

further proceedings. Objections to this Report and Recommendation were due by

October 20, 2011.

Defendant has filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. Upon

de novo review as required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b), the Court finds the Report and

Recommendation well taken. Accordingly, it (Doc. 23) is ADOPTED. This matter

is hereby REMANDED to the administrative law judge for further proceedings,

which shall include a re-evaluation of the plaintiff’s credibility and a

reconsideration under the required sequential evaluation procedure of whether the

plaintiff was under a disability, as set forth in the Report and Recommendation of

October 3, 2011.

s/ George C. Smith 

United States District Judge 

Case: 2:10-cv-01166-GCS-MRA Doc #: 24 Filed: 11/30/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 1.     | Such                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007,                fully                complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities                Exchange Act of 1934; and                                  |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
| 2.     | The                information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                period ended March 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects,                the financial condition and results of operations of Rockelle Corp. |

| By:    | */s/*   *Gerard                Stephan*Gerard                StephanChief                Executive OfficerChief                Financial Officer |
|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Domestic and international currency reporting

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Domestic and international currency reporting 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  Department of the Treasury 
                    -           Subjects        
                    -  United States. Department of the TreasuryUnited States. Internal Revenue ServiceU.S. Customs Service 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1980-1990 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  141 × 31 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  021288691.jpg; 021288691.jpg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
- fplr2239-1
- fplr2239-2
- fplr2239-3
- fplr2239-4
- fplr2239-5
- fplr2239-6
- fplr2239-7
- fplr2239-8
- fplr2239-9
- fplr2239-10
- fplr2239-11
- fplr2239-12
- fplr2239-13
Case No. 9,900.

#### MUDD v. CLEMENTS.

[3 Cranch. C. C. 3.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec., 1826.

Seduction — Action by Father — Loss of Service — Usder Promise of Marriage — Evidence —Form of Action.

1. In an action upon the case for seduction of the plaintiff’s daughter, per quod servitium amisit, the plaintiff may give evidence that the defendant promised to marry the daughter, as a means of the seduction.

2. An action upon the case will lie for seduction of the plaintiff's daughter, whereby he lost her service.

Action upon the case for seducing plaintiff’s daughter, whereby he lost her service. Damages laid at $2,000.

Mr. Lear, for plaintiff, offered to prove a promise of marriage as the means of seduction.

The defendant’s counsel, Mr. Marbury, objected, and cited 2 Phil. Ev. 159; Tullidge v. Wade. 3 Wils. 18; Dodd v. Norris, 3 Camp. 519, and Foster v. Scoffield, 1 Johns. 297.

But

THE COURT,

(nem. con.) permitted the evidence to be. given for the purpose of showing the means by which the defendant accomplished the seduction; and the defendant took a bill of exceptions. See Starkie, Ev. pt. 4, pp. 1309, 1310; Peake. Ev. 355; and Elliott v. Nicklin, 5 Price, 641.

The defendant’s counsel then prayed the court to instruct the jury that this action upon the case would not lie, and that the action had been misconceived.

But THE COURT (nem. con.) refused, saying that they might move it in arrest of judgment, if it were a substantial objection. See 1 Chit. Pl. 138; 2 Chit. Pl. 265, 271, 315, 422; 3 Starkie, Ev. (Am. Ed.) 1307, 1308, note 1; Bennett v. Allcott, 2 Term R. 167; Woodward v. Walton, 2 Bos. & P. N. R. 476; Macfadzen v. Olivant, 6 East, 387; Parker v. Elliotte, Gilmer, 33, 6 Munf. 587.

The defendant took his second bill of exceptions.

Verdict for plaintiff $2,000. There was no motion made in arrest of judgment, nor any writ of error issued.
A90A0514.

#### CARTER v. THE STATE.

(393 SE2d 746)

Sognier, Judge.

Shelby Carter was convicted on two counts of child molestation, two counts of aggravated child molestation, and one count of cruelty *490to children for incidents involving his eight-year-old son and eleven-year-old stepdaughter. He appeals.

Decided May 1, 1990.

*Tyron C. Elliott,*for appellant.

*William G. Hamrick, Jr., District Attorney, Peter J.*
      *491
      *Skandalakis, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*4901. Appellant enumerates as error the trial court’s decision to allow a twenty-minute recess during the State’s examination of his son, during which the prosecutor conferred with the witness privately. The transcript reveals that at trial appellant interposed no objection to either the recess or the conference, thereby waiving his right to object on appeal. *Fancher v. State,*190 Ga. App. 438, 439 (1) (378 SE2d 923) (1989). Further, given that the State is permitted to confer privately with a witness before the witness begins testifying, *Ross v. State,*254 Ga. 22, 28 (a) (326 SE2d 194) (1985), we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to allow the conference at issue, especially given the tender age of the victim, the nature of the charges, and the child’s admitted fear of appellant. To the extent that the witness altered his testimony after the recess, the credibility of his testimony was for the jury to determine. OCGA § 24-9-80. We find no error.

2. In two enumerations appellant contends the trial court erred by finding three juvenile witnesses competent to testify. Specifically, he maintains that the court improperly applied OCGA § 24-9-5 (b) (authorizing admission of testimony by child who is victim of or witness to any crime) as the standard for admission of the witnesses’ testimony, and that the witnesses were allowed to testify without a clear demonstration that they understood the need to tell the truth.

The transcript reveals that the trial court examined each witness at the beginning of his or her testimony to ascertain that the child knew the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie and understood why telling the truth was better than telling a falsehood, and obtained from each witness a promise to tell the truth in response to questions from counsel. This examination by the trial court “was sufficient to determine that [the witnesses] understood the nature of an oath, and it was not an abuse of discretion to allow [them] to testify. [Cits.]” *Pendergrass v. State,*168 Ga. App. 190 (1) (308 SE2d 585) (1983). Appellant’s contention that the trial court erroneously relied on OCGA § 24-9-5 (b) is without merit, as that provision became effective on April 19, 1989 (Ga. L. 1989, p. 1639, §§ 1, 3), and appellant was tried in May 1989.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carley, C. J., and McMurray, P. J., concur.*